Over-biked dilema

MuddyFunster

I'm feeling over-biked on (and falling out of love with) my 2008 Enduro SL and looking for something a little less burly... I'd have to confess to having had more fun on the old Trance that this beast replaced and I want some of my former single-tracky, trail bikey fun back. Keen on a hardtail from a (lack of) maintenance perspective, so I'm thinking that I might buy a Blue Pig, mmm Bop or BeFe frame, and bolt all the bits from the Enduro onto the new frame, including the E150 fork.
The question for my fellow forumites is, therefore, am I in any danger of finding that I have another heavyweight, slack angled, only-fun-on-a-downhill beast on my hands, beating my up with it's rigid rear? Or can these frames with 150mm of travel up front genuinely deliver the more single track oriented feeling I've missed?

.blitz

There are only two situations when a HT has an advantage: smooth trails and dirt jumps. Everywhere else the same person (that's you) will be able to ride faster & further with less fatigue on a FS. Hide behind the seatpost and let the front end sort out the mess you've made. Skill compensator? Maybe. More fun? Definitely.

styxd

The question for my fellow forumites is, therefore, am I in any danger of finding that I have another heavyweight, slack angled, only-fun-on-a-downhill beast on my hands

Yes, thats what'll happen. You pretty much lose everything thats good about a hardtail when you put stupid length forks on it.

Buy a Cotic Soul, put some 100-120mm forks on it and some light wheels and be happy!

styxd

you) will be able to ride faster & further with less fatigue on a FS

Well, it depends on the trail and the bike. An over weight full sus bike is going to be slower round trail centres and xc loops than a nice, light hardtail.

DodgeT

Styxd - did you suffer a bad experience at the hands of a pair of dirty, long travel forks at a young age as you appear to show a lot of resentment towards them

styxd

Styxd - did you suffer a bad experience at the hands of a pair of dirty, long travel forks at a young age as you appear to show a lot of resentment towards them

I once had a pair of Manitou Sherman forks with 7inches of travel, they were shite.

I often get stuck behind mincers at trail centres who are riding hardtails with long forks.

I think its a combination of the two.

DodgeT

Ah, I see.

1mancity2

styxd wrote:

The question for my fellow forumites is, therefore, am I in any danger of finding that I have another heavyweight, slack angled, only-fun-on-a-downhill beast on my hands

Yes, thats what'll happen. You pretty much lose everything thats good about a hardtail when you put stupid length forks on it.

Buy a Cotic Soul, put some 100-120mm forks on it and some light wheels and be happy!

Again I sort of agree, why go 150mm travel on a H/T when a F/S with the same can cope with a lot more, well for me anyway.

andy_welch

styxd wrote:

Well, it depends on the trail and the bike. An over weight full sus bike is going to be slower round trail centres and xc loops than a nice, light hardtail.

Sounds plausible, but do you have any evidence for this? Not being funny but it seems to me that most of the (invariably anecdotal) evidence for one MTB being faster than another is pretty dubious. I had a go at trying to measure the differences when I had a Trance on a 4 day demo. I compared it with a fully rigid bike over trails where you would expect the differences to be clear (e.g. smooth fireroad climbs etc), but all I really showed was just how hard it is to conduct a meaningful study. For example, first time out on the Trance I thrashed my previous best over 4 miles of mostly climbing on smooth trails, which didn't make any sense. I'm sure that it was just because I was enjoying the bike so wanted it to be faster. I did eventually manage to get the rigid bike to cover the same 4 miles a minute faster than the Trance. But, again, it was pretty meaningless as I was setting out to show that the rigid bike would be faster.

Without controlling for weather, trail condition, how you feel and without proper power data it seems pretty much impossible to say anything definitive. Funny thing is, now I've bought the Trance, I find that I couldn't care less about the speed and just enjoy riding it

Cheers,

Andy

styxd

Sounds plausible, but do you have any evidence for this?

No, and infact Im probably talking bobbins. Thiking about it, if everything was equal (i.e. tyres/geometry/components) apart from the weight of the frame, then the full sus would probably be quicker due to the extra grip gained.

But, most heavy full sussers tend to have fat tyres and geometry thats not great for pedalling uphills and round tight trails on. That was my point.

MuddyFunster

styxd wrote:

But, most heavy full sussers tend to have fat tyres and geometry thats not great for pedalling uphills and round tight trails on. That was my point.

This is getting to the nub of the matter, I think. I'm not racing anyone, so it isn't about flat out speed round anything - it's all about getting back to that flowy feeling on singletrack. And that's where the Enduro (IMHO) isn't delivering in the way that my old Trance did. Rather regretting falling into the more travel = better trap...
I did consider a Soul, but that would mean new forks and new front wheel and that was beginning to push the budget up from what had looked like a pretty modest outlay for the likes of the Blue Pig. But getting it right now will be cheaper in the long run that buying another pup. Not to mention wasting a promising summer with the wrong bike.

andy_welch

If you miss your Trance, have you considered buying a Trance

Cheers

Andy

kenan

I'v got a HT with 140 up front and a AM FS and an for me the HT is faster as an all round bike. I do really enjoy both bikes and wouldn't change either.

Your problem may be the Enduro, a friend borrowed one and brought it on our regular ride. Neither one of us could get on with it and ended up fighting over my FS. I'm not saying the Enduro is a bad bike, we just didn't get on with it.

twonks

I've had a sc superlight with 100mm both ends for around 12 years, switching to the newer frame a few years ago when my old one cracked on the seat tube.

Had always maintained that FS was a lot faster than a HT, but more speed doesn't always equal more smiles.

I've not rode the FS since August last year after a nasty off and have build up a Piglet with 115mm forks on as a suplementary bike until I get light enough not to feel like I'm going to break my FS (Currently 110kg :oops: )

I've found the HT to be a wonderful ride and one that is unlike any other frame I've had. It does seem to ride well and deals with XC type downhills easily. Maybe it's the steel frame giving a bit, but either way I'd say the so called new breed of HT frames is not all about clowning around and pogo-ing everywhere - as long as you don't go silly with the angles and weight.

Having said that, when I finally do get back on the FS, I'll probably realise very quickly what I have been missing

supersonic

Everywhere else the same person (that's you) will be able to ride faster & further with less fatigue on a FS

Depends on so much - the rider, the terrain, and the bikes. I am way faster on my Zaskar than every FS I have ever tried over XC terrain.

bazza333

Due to a mechanical hiccup I've been using my 120mm XC FS bike around my local 8 mile course. Once the 100mm HT was up and running again I knocked 2 minutes off my best time. Its fast single track and fireroads with only a couple of short steep climbs - somewhere else would probably give a different result.

lawman

the main problem is nobody really makes a HT that imo has the geometry to bomb around around, i.e. nice and slack, but is not made for huge 150mm forks... bikes like the soul are too steep, but then bikes like the 456 or blue pig are overbuilt... the piglet is probably the only suitably slack, but shortish travel HT out there...

styxd

Why is everyone obsessed with overly slack frames. Like supersonic said, he was fastest on his Zaskar which is proper xc frame - if you can ride properly you dont need a mega slack head angle.

Torres

lawman wrote:

the main problem is nobody really makes a HT that imo has the geometry to bomb around around, i.e. nice and slack, but is not made for huge 150mm forks... bikes like the soul are too steep, but then bikes like the 456 or blue pig are overbuilt... the piglet is probably the only suitably slack, but shortish travel HT out there...

What about a 4x frame, identiti krisis, nukeproof snap etc. Slack, stable, short travel and light; granted a bit small for riding great distances but if you just want to loon about in the woods I think they'r spot on.

rockmonkeysc

Blue Pig with 120mm forks is pretty nice & a lot lighter than the Enduro.
Personally I find my 170mm travel full sus bike fine for everything even though I can ride DH trails just as fast on my 160mm travel hardtail.
Big travel AM/FR bikes make sense when you go somewhere you can blast down DH/FR trails then pedal back up the fire road & singletrack for the next trail. I had an amazing day on my Reign X at Rowbarrow Warren this Sunday, pedaled every climb, held back a bit on the descents due to not having a full face helmet & pads.

waby1234

styxd wrote:

I often get stuck behind mincers at trail centres who are riding hardtails with long forks.

I often get stuck behind overweight FS bikes on climbs!

lawman

Torres wrote:

lawman wrote:

the main problem is nobody really makes a HT that imo has the geometry to bomb around around, i.e. nice and slack, but is not made for huge 150mm forks... bikes like the soul are too steep, but then bikes like the 456 or blue pig are overbuilt... the piglet is probably the only suitably slack, but shortish travel HT out there...

What about a 4x frame, identiti krisis, nukeproof snap etc. Slack, stable, short travel and light; granted a bit small for riding great distances but if you just want to loon about in the woods I think they'r spot on.

4x frames tend to be, as you say, small, at a hair over 6ft, I can't really get away with it. this was one of the great things about the blur 4x, great geometry, and great size, short travel and an absolute blast to ride, people seem to be taking it to short travel FS, whyte t-120, yeti asr5, blut TRc, but few have adopted it on hardtails.

Thewaylander

waby1234 wrote:

styxd wrote:

I often get stuck behind mincers at trail centres who are riding hardtails with long forks.

I often get stuck behind overweight FS bikes on climbs!

Yup but climbing is boring and easy to pull over to let weight weenies past :P DhH is just a pain to push them off the trail ;p

twonks

At the end of the day it's horses for courses etc etc.
Some will prefer one bike over another and it will always be that way.
When I was fit (late 2010 iirc) I rode my rebuilt 1999 Zaskar LE round Cannock 5 minutes faster than my FS for a similar percieved effort. Not had chance to ride that hard yet on the Piglet but I'd expect it to be somewhere near.

However, after todays local ride I was sick of not having rear suspension. The route is 80% singltrack esque through woods, but 10% is over playing fields with ruts and bumps. When tired at speed the HT makes these plain annoying yet they are not really even noticed on a FS, so it shows that there is more to it than speed alone.

Tomorrow I'll be back on the FS and I suspect the Piglet will remain indoors for a while. :roll: